A tour at NCDOC will help as well. Even though there is only one O4 CYBER Milestone billet, Officers there earn a CYBER AQD after 12 months which I believe is currently being updated in the NOOCS Manual for BLC (Cyber Development), BLD (Cyber Defense), and BLO (Cyber Offense)and if you have sub-specialty code 6209P (CNO and IT Masters), then after 18 months, you have the option of requesting 6209Q or 6208Q (CYBER) for experience.

COMEVIL, perhaps my original statement should have been worded as, "You can also get Cyber documentation in your record if you do a tour at NCDOC." You can earn CYBER AQDs and Sub-Spec codes for CYBER at the O3 and O4 levels there in addition to some of the billets available at other places like USCC and the NCUs, etc. We (NAVIDFOR Force Management) updated the package for approval for the NOOCS manual to reflect the new CYBER AQDs as I mentioned in an earlier post. BOC and BOD (corrected from the previous post, the BL AQDs are for EW) can be earned at 12 months in the coded billet. If you have a STEM Masters in MIS, COMP SCI, Cyber, EE, etc. 6208P (CYBER)/6209P (CNO and IT) Masters, then those sub-spec codes will be upgraded automatically by PERS-45E to 6208Q/6209Q (Follow on Experience) after 18 months. You can also elect to have a 6209P switched over to 6208Q as well. I hope this helps.

The AQD and Sub-Spec business can get somewhat complicated. VADM Tighe's vision for recoding these areas is so IDC Officers in the future would earn a STEM Masters which would expand the aperture for Cyber degrees out of NPS. SIGINT and EW are still important, but Cyber is considered at the forefront, although I believe SIGINT and EW are parts of Cyber anyway. I noticed O5 Selects that had some type of Cyber background and documentation that were selected; however, I do not believe that it is a requirement at this time looking at the precepts, but it could be a discriminator in the future. It appears that the folks selected did have a variety of backgrounds and sustained performance, but I am curious if the high rate of AZ selects is a one time anomaly. I know several that will retire from the AZ and IZ list and this could potentially change the next two cycles as well as with the possibility of removing YGs in 2017 that will have an affect.

This is a great topic because technically we can help shape a lot of this. Cyber, SIGINT, and EW are moving targets just like IO was a few years ago, but IO in my opinion, is an umbrella term for anything other than the top core competencies since we do not specialize in PSYOP, MILDEC, etc. This is another phase of change for the IDC and we're not sure how far VADM Tighe wants to go to. This is where we can collaborate on an end-state in a forum like this. There is a lot of talent and experience available in this portal to create movers and shakers.

20yearman, I do not think there is anything wrong with a letter to the board noting CYBER AQDs in your record, regardless of where they came from. Some may say you don't want to draw attention to yourself, but with documentation to prove that you in fact earned them should be all that matters. I have at least three O6 mentors and they tell me this periodically. Noting these accomplishments indicate you care about what you've earned and sends a signal to the reviewer. This is different than unnecessary negative letters that should not go to the board. You can bring up a special skillset from a different pay grade to show what you bring to the table as long as you keep it relevant to the current IDC mission. I see a letter highlighting this as a positive and would let the voters understand the importance briefly in the environment that we are entering in. This is just my opinion and I hope it helps. I've sent letters and it did not prevent me from promoting.

rturcic72 wrote:SIGINT and EW are still important, but Cyber is considered at the forefront, although I believe SIGINT and EW are parts of Cyber anyway.

Cyber is another discipline, but not a replacement for SIGINT or EW. And SIGINT and EW are certainly NOT a subset of Cyber. In fact, much of what we have begun referring to as Cyber is truly SIGINT. The RF Spectrum -- exploiting it (SIGINT), and denying it (EW), and maneuvering within it (EMMW) -- will continue to play a key role in warfare for years to come.

rturcic72 wrote:This is a great topic because technically we can help shape a lot of this. Cyber, SIGINT, and EW are moving targets just like IO was a few years ago, but IO in my opinion, is an umbrella term for anything other than the top core competencies since we do not specialize in PSYOP, MILDEC, etc. This is another phase of change for the IDC and we're not sure how far VADM Tighe wants to go to. This is where we can collaborate on an end-state in a forum like this. There is a lot of talent and experience available in this portal to create movers and shakers.

Can you elaborate on what we can "shape?" We are enablers, and our mission is based on demand signal. The day we become self-serving is the day we become irrelevant. Our mission should take us where the demand is, with our key pillars, SIGINT, Cyber, and EW.

COMEVIL brought up a great point that the O5 promotion board is made up of a majority URL with 2 IDC, while the Command board is all IDC. They will view records and jobs through different lenses. The advocacy and education by the IDC on a promotion board is significant, as is the influence of the chair on a Command board. I have seen the adherence and emphasis put on the precept at a promotion board first hand, but do not know about adherence at a Command screen board.

LIVINGIW wrote:COMEVIL brought up a great point that the O5 promotion board is made up of a majority URL with 2 IDC, while the Command board is all IDC. They will view records and jobs through different lenses. The advocacy and education by the IDC on a promotion board is significant, as is the influence of the chair on a Command board. I have seen the adherence and emphasis put on the precept at a promotion board first hand, but do not know about adherence at a Command screen board.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my one experience as an AREC at the IDC Command and Milestone board the convening order played a prominent role in preparing and briefing packages.

COMEVIL, you bring up very valid points. The CNO visited us a few months ago and his Top Three Priorities were CYBER, SIGINT, and EW. As I sat through the recent and new IDOMDC (formerly the IDC Mid-Career Course) Pilot as an observer, VADM Branch brought this up as well and VADM Tighe restated too. Before the focus on Cyber, EW and SIGINT were the priorities, but the argument then became that since EW relies on the spectrum, and the spectrum included the bandwidth for Cyber space where the Internet also resides on, for SIGINT to be properly executed, you needed a source for this bandwidth, so many folks considered SIGINT as EW.

Fast forward to today and now Cyber is the household name and requires bandwidth on the spectrum. In my opinion being a former EW DH and Blue Team Director, these three core competencies we discuss reside on the spectrum and require bandwidth to execute for sure. However, without Cyberspace, the invisible battlefield where the spectrum resides, then we, in my opinion, would not be able to execute SIGINT and EW. In 2009-2010, POTUS sent out a message dividing up the spectrum bandwidth between military, commercial, Internet, etc. His goal was to allow access to Internet to folks that had minimal access. So, Cyber is likely the new umbrella term for Internet, OCO, DCO, GCO, SIGINT, EW, etc. This is why I believe SIGINT and EW is a part of Cyber because they both require an environment that can allow frequencies and radio transmissions to travel through. Perhaps there could be an argument made that Cyberspace and Cyber could be defined as two separate entities.

So, for the purposes of Cyber documentation for consideration on a board, even though specific command missions in Cyber like an NCU, USCC, and NCDOC are good, I do not believe Cyber AQDs need to be earned only in these locations, but could be recognized better by reviewers. We have IWOs with Space AQDs from NPS and have not stepped foot in a true Space Command, however; we have billets at NAVIDFOR that allow for IDC Officers with these AQDs to represent the Space Cadre and maintain some form of collaboration with actual Cadre.

Finally onto the shape and enabling piece you mentioned. You are correct that we are enablers. We need to be; however, I believe that we become pigeon-holed into being enablers that we do not spend enough time outside of the box to innovate and shape, particularly at the JO level. There are JOs that are afraid to share ideas with senior leadership. Some senior leadership either project a "my way or the highway" way of doing things, while other senior leadership encourage innovation, out of the box ideas no matter how crazy they might sound empowering their personnel to elicit this type of climate. There is no doubt that our mission will be tailored to the demand signal, but at the same time maintaining constant foresight as to the possibility other things could change the mission landscape unexpectedly, I think enhances our chances of not becoming irrelevant. Sure our Flags can dictate their vision, goals, end-states, etc. but we can push those ideas up to not only shape their goals, but also help shape our own command missions.

rturcic72 wrote:COMEVIL, you bring up very valid points. The CNO visited us a few months ago and his Top Three Priorities were CYBER, SIGINT, and EW. As I sat through the recent and new IDOMDC (formerly the IDC Mid-Career Course) Pilot as an observer, VADM Branch brought this up as well and VADM Tighe restated too. Before the focus on Cyber, EW and SIGINT were the priorities, but the argument then became that since EW relies on the spectrum, and the spectrum included the bandwidth for Cyber space where the Internet also resides on, for SIGINT to be properly executed, you needed a source for this bandwidth, so many folks considered SIGINT as EW. Fast forward to today and now Cyber is the household name and requires bandwidth on the spectrum. In my opinion being a former EW DH and Blue Team Director, these three core competencies we discuss reside on the spectrum and require bandwidth to execute for sure. However, without Cyberspace, the invisible battlefield where the spectrum resides, then we, in my opinion, would not be able to execute SIGINT and EW. In 2009-2010, POTUS sent out a message dividing up the spectrum bandwidth between military, commercial, Internet, etc. His goal was to allow access to Internet to folks that had minimal access. So, Cyber is likely the new umbrella term for Internet, OCO, DCO, GCO, SIGINT, EW, etc. This is why I believe SIGINT and EW is a part of Cyber because they both require an environment that can allow frequencies and radio transmissions to travel through. Perhaps there could be an argument made that Cyberspace and Cyber could be defined as two separate entities.

OK. You have done an incredible amount of acrobatics to get here. Here being that SIGINT and EW are part of Cyber. And…I still disagree with you.

From the Joint Pub, a definition of Cyberspace:

“Domain characterized by the use of electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to store, modify, and exchange data via networked systems and associated physical infrastructures.”

To me, the key word is networked. I don’t think anyone will argue, unless they are looking for funding from the cyber cash cow, that push-to-talk, GSM, navigation radars, chaff, etc are part of cyber.

SIGINT and EW existed long before Cyber ever came along. But I digress. Call it what you want.

rturcic72 wrote:So, for the purposes of Cyber documentation for consideration on a board, even though specific command missions in Cyber like an NCU, USCC, and NCDOC are good, I do not believe Cyber AQDs need to be earned only in these locations, but could be recognized better by reviewers. We have IWOs with Space AQDs from NPS and have not stepped foot in a true Space Command, however; we have billets at NAVIDFOR that allow for IDC Officers with these AQDs to represent the Space Cadre and maintain some form of collaboration with actual Cadre.

No, no, no! This is just the problem. We shouldn’t let everyone get a piece of the cyber wave, if there is such thing – I don’t think there is, regardless of experience or expertise! Yes, Space AQDs were handed out like candy canes at Christmas. Then the Space Cadre got smart, revoked almost every one, and reestablished a standard! Let the Cyber AQDs stand. And ensure they are truly related to cyber work.

rturcic72 wrote:Finally onto the shape and enabling piece you mentioned. You are correct that we are enablers. We need to be; however, I believe that we become pigeon-holed into being enablers that we do not spend enough time outside of the box to innovate and shape, particularly at the JO level. There are JOs that are afraid to share ideas with senior leadership. Some senior leadership either project a "my way or the highway" way of doing things, while other senior leadership encourage innovation, out of the box ideas no matter how crazy they might sound empowering their personnel to elicit this type of climate. There is no doubt that our mission will be tailored to the demand signal, but at the same time maintaining constant foresight as to the possibility other things could change the mission landscape unexpectedly, I think enhances our chances of not becoming irrelevant. Sure our Flags can dictate their vision, goals, end-states, etc. but we can push those ideas up to not only shape their goals, but also help shape our own command missions.

Agree! I personally have no issue with the term enabler. And please don’t get me started on the whole “warfighter” argument. The good news – there are lots of venue for discussion, and plenty of JOs who aren’t afraid to share their ideas by writing them down and getting them published. A new blog is on the way that might help this issue as well. MTF.

This whole thread really leaves me scratching my head and perplexed as to why people seem to be so misinformed. What conversations are we having at wardroom training? Seems as though we aren't having the right ones (assuming wardroom training is a priority anywhere these days).